This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Afghanistan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Central Asia Mid‑importance Ghurid dynasty is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tajikistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tajikistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tajikistan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TajikistanWikipedia:WikiProject TajikistanTemplate:WikiProject TajikistanTajikistan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. India High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

He did not know the Persian language, so he had a Persian translator in his court. he was not tajek. Realone23 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you created two threads for this. Anyways, read WP:SOAPBOX. Moreover, in Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not your personal theories/deductions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for comment Realone23 (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about credable "modren sources" both cambridge history of india & iran call ghurids, ( suri Afghans)! 84.210.149.236 (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means nothing. No author, no page number, no quote, no link. Meaningless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Richard Eaton (2000). Essays on Islam and Indian History. Oxford University Press.
• Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, Online Edition, 2006
• Wink, André (2020). The Making of the Indo-Islamic World: c.700–1800 CE. Cambridge University Press.
• Cynthia Talbot, The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
• Flood, Finbarr B. (20 March 2018). Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval "Hindu-Muslim" Encounter. Princeton University Press.

Oxford University(2000)

Cambridge University(2020)

Cambridge University(2016)

Princeton University(2018)--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that there is qoute from cambridge history of islam in article, but the VERY cambridge on history of india and iran call it suri Afghans. Which was funny and as expected you prove my point by pointing some links. Any way, you don't want me to add 10s of books calling them Afghans,? Will it change a thing? Things are really stupidly funny here! 84.210.149.236 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means nothing. No author, no page number, no quote, no link. Meaningless.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "..Tajik Ghurids which also held sovereignty in Khurasan and Ghur...." -- Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Volume IV: Age of the Great Mughals, André Wink, Brill, 2024, page 36. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  you cut out the start of the sentence right? :D where he is talking about Kurt dynasty who is descendents of tajik ( section) of ghurids :D good lord... 84.210.149.236 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No more than you attributing Ghurids to being Afghans when the sentence clearly doesn't call them that! No more than you ignoring the two quotes posted on Noorullah's talk page calling them of Tajik origin. Save your "good lord" for your own blind nationalistic bias. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah right, everyone knows who is nationalistic here. And who is tireslly editing against a certain group. Thanks for the request. But save it. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tirelessly, using academic published sources to write what you don't like. Got it.

• "everyone knows who is nationalistic here."

LMAO. You've been reading too much of your own propaganda. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only the sources you like. Others get deleted as - rv disruptive. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you've never heard of WP:CONSENSUS. Last time I removed references was here. Which means you must be Kamal Afghan01. Which also means, you didn't take it to the article talk page to get consensus. Instead you canvassed Noorullah to proxy edit for you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means i dont know kamal and it also means dont make things up. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just see past 3-4 months and see how many sources are removed including norullahs, as disruptive. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani Hi, per this edit, you said that what I posted in my edit and edit summary was not what the source said.

My edit: [1]

Your revert: [2]

Here was what I added: Many Ghurid princes married into local ethnicities such as Tajiks, Persians, Turks, and Afghans, thus characterizing them as some of these ethnicities.

Here's the source: Many of the Shansabani princes married Turkish slave-girls or possessed them as concubines. A notable admixture of Tajik, Persian, Turkish, and Indigenous Afghan ethnicities therefore characterized the Shansabanis." [3]

So could you explain how this would be OR? Noorullah (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot read the source anymore, but I could when I reverted your edit. I don't remember why I performed that revert, however, feel free to revert me if you think that your edit was an improvement of this article. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani Just saw this now, will be reverting, thanks for clearing this up. Not sure why you can't read the source though, that is kind of annoying. Noorullah (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the beggining of article makes no mention of "presumably tajik", but only mentions that they were from Afghan Mountains.So it should only be left with eastren iranic origins. Correct me if i am wrong. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sourced "Origins" section. Making more threads [4] will not get you closer to remove sourced info. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said about the opening if you cared to read, just making up excuses as usual right? Then leave the origin in the " origins" section and stick to source in the opening , as was before u changed it. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you cared to read the policies of this website before your user account was indeffed, you would know that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the the body of the article. Scholars consider the Ghurids to have been Tajiks, thus that will remain in the lede, and you will just have to deal with it. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe you know more than me that most scholars considers Suri Afghans well.. suri Afghans. And dont get over excited behind your monitor, it's just wiki ( the most unreliable website, infact the only website that warns that i am very unreliable". Dishonesty should be in sale..and the discussion is over. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you are still remaining here despite being indeffed and desperately making new threads to remove sourced information by scholars who know much more than you. Make it make sense. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Scholars that apparently know more than us nobodies still hold a strong belief that Ghauris were Tajiks then that is just laughable and pathetic.

In no empirical measure can Ghauris ever be described as Tajiks or Turks, from any respectable opinion whatsoever. We certainly know they weren't from those two as rational beings of course instead of from the perspective of the damaged psyche of many who feel the need to tie their ethnic group to whatever deemed glorious empire in spite of blatant intellectual dishonesty; a phenomenon that extends to Wikipedia and this article itself. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, we follow WP:RS, not our personal opinion. Since you have already been blocked for personal attacks once, I've pinged the blocking admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself principled enough to not lie to every human being who lays eyes on the article. It's objectively morally wrong to write up an indication towards a falsehood in the opening intro of an article from what is meant to be an impartial website. Wikipedian editors have no right to comment on the ethnicity of a people of whom the information is not known, non of you know they were Tajiks so why are people so insistent on the inclusion of that sentence?

Calling Ghauris as Tajiks is justified because its sourced. Now how does Wikipedia react to sources calling them Afghan or Turkic?

If it matters, I want "presumably ..." removed. If you can't claim it was a Tajik empire then why is it there? Theres sources that have us writing they're apparently of a different ethnicity.

"Presumably" and "Tajik" should be removed. Left to just say Eastern Iranic. Or just Iranian Empire which is the only appropriate classification.

To an extent Wikipedia does in fact let you use you think for yourself in the interest of the betterment of the site. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, we still follow WP:RS, not your "morals" or what you consider to be a "falsehood". I looked at the cited sources, 4 outrightly say that they were Tajiks, 1 says "probably", and the other "we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks." So I've removed, "presumably", that should satisfy your "morals". HistoryofIran (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not my morals; it's God's given morals, I am not one who uniquely decided this, billions of humans believe that if you lie to other you will be held accountable for it. If I phrased my comment in a way where I seemed very specific on the existing sources of the article itself then my mistake. I'm saying If I pulled out a source, what does Wikipedia do upon this?

If a source says that Ghauris did not natively speak Persian, what are you going to do about it? Just inquiring out of curiosity.. Do non-Persian speaking Ghurids come under the category of Tajiks in your mind? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not cater to "God's given morals" either. Read our policies this time, we follow those, and only those, including WP:RS. And I don't care about your question, this is not a WP:FORUM. See also WP:SOAPBOX. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very amusing. I've made my point atleast. I just wanted readers to see this entire discourse on the insistent publication of falsehood on wikipedia.

Reminds me of the Afghanistan not being apart of central asia thread on Wikipedia RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very amusing that we have to follow the policies of this website, something you also tried to go against here [5] where you ended up getting blocked. Just like that thread, just because you don't agree with something, doesn't make it a "falsehood" - we still follow WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Tiananmen Square massacre and Ghurids were not Tajiks. Falsehoods.

That was my point. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He acts like he owns wiki, he even deleted - presumably- ,he is more confident than most scholars:D. Time you guys really do something. Take it to wikipedia administrasjon or something. 178.232.112.187 (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am relying on scholars (WP:RS), unlike you and RevolutionaryPatriot. Take it to Wikipedia adminstration? Like you were and got indeffed? Perhaps it's about time your IPs got the same treatment, since you're evading your block (WP:BLOCKEVASION). HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have NEVER been blocked! what are you on? And we have given 10s of books as reliable sources only to get reverted! Check history ones. 178.232.112.187 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reported you, you're not fooling anyone - you're the same person as 84.210.149.236. And instead of spamming article and user talk pages, you should perhaps read WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THE GHURID DYNASTY'S ETHNICITY IS DISPUTED.ALMOST ALL THE 19TH CENTURY HISTORIANS INCLUDING MOUNTSTUATE ELPHINTONE HASE DESCRIBED GHURIDS AS PASHTUNS OR ETHNIC AFGHANS.( Ghurid Dynasty in Pashto ( (د غوریانو شاهي کورنۍ) 2A04:4A43:58EF:EA26:0:0:63E9:3FA2 (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]